Lords Sitting of 10 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Construction of the House.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies* (238); Indorsing of Warrants* (240); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit* (237); Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation* (241); Tain Provisional Order Confirmation* (242); Hudson's Bay Company* (214); Colonial Governors' Pensions Act Amendment* (239).
Second Reading—University Elections (Voting Tapers) (201); Libel (Ireland)* (209); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (200); Railways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (177).
Committee—Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension* (184); Consular Marriages* (198).
Report—Curragh of Kildare * (195); Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension* (184); Consular Marriages* (198); Artizans' and labourers' Dwellings (228).
Third Reading—Petroleum Act Amendment * (178); Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment* (202); New Zealand (legislative Council)* (197); Admiralty Suits* (182), and passed.
Withdrawn—Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* (229); Lodgers' Property Protection (186); Children, &c. Protection* (187).

IRISH CHURCH COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DUFFERIN,seeing the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) in his place, wished to be permitted, without proper Notice, to ask him, Whether the Report of the Irish Church Commission was likely to be presented to Parliament before the prorogation; and, if not, whether it was likely to be circulated before the dissolution?
  EARL STANHOPE: My noble Friend would more properly have addressed his Question to my noble Friend the Earl of Meath, the Chairman of the Commission; but, Lord Meath being now absent from town, I will very readily give the information the noble Lord seeks. I have, then, to state that the Commissioners on the Established Church in Ireland have agreed to their recommendations, and have settled even the very terms of their Report. There is only one reason why they have not been able to present their Report, and that is that it has reference to certain statistics, the entire accuracy of which can only be determined by a Schedule to the Report, which is not yet complete. Tour Lordships will agree that we ought not to present any Report on this important subject without being entirely satisfied of the accuracy of the statistics contained in it. We have, therefore, delayed the signatures until the Schedule has been obtained. One of our number is at present in Dublin to expedite that Schedule as much as possible; and we have every reason to believe that in a fortnight or three weeks the Report will be signed and presented, and that very soon after it will be in the hands of your Lordships. The noble Lord properly forbore to ask information as to the recommendation of the Commissioners; but there is one point which it will not be a breach of confidence to refer to, and it is that whatever our recommendations may be they will be unanimous, and that the Report will receive the signatures of everyone of the Commissioners. This is no unimportant result to have attained when it was remembered that the Commission was composed of men of very different politics, some of whom sit on opposite sides of your Lordships' House. I therefore hope that the unanimity which attends our recommendations, whatever they may be, will bespeak at the hands of your Lordships and of the country a respectful consideration. Without imputing that the question has been a

  973
  little too much in the domain of party politics, and that it has sometimes been argued on that ground, we shall leave our Report to the dispassionate consideration of the Government and country, upon these two grounds—that it will contain much authentic information not at present known or accessible, and that it will bring forth some practical and useful recommendations.

SIR ROBERT NAPIER.

  THE QUEENS MESSAGE.
  Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Queen's Message of Yesterday read.
  Message read.
  Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to return Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most gracious Message informing this House "That Her Majesty, taking into consideration the important Services rendered by Sir Robert Napier, a Lieutenant-General in Her Majesty's Army, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army of Bombay, in the Conduct of the recent Expedition into Abyssinia, and being desirous to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour for these and other distinguished Merits upon the said Sir Robert Napier, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make Provision for securing to the said Sir Robert Napier and the next surviving Heir Male of his Body a Pension of Two thousand Pounds per Annum;" and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make such Provision.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD MELVILLEsaid, he could not withhold the expression of his opinion that in granting this pension to Sir Robert Napier for two lives only their Lordships were establishing a bad precedent instead of following a good one. He was not aware of any pension having been granted for such distinguished services for less than three lives. Taking into account the distinguished character of the operations, the obstacles which had been overcome in the campaign, and the signal ability displayed by this distinguished officer, he hoped the Government would re-consider their de termination, and grant the pension on the terms which had been invariably followed heretofore—namely, for three lives.
  EARL RUSSELLexpressed his entire concurrence in the Address which had been moved by the noble Earl.
  Address agreed to Nemine Contradicente, and Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Bill and the Bills appointed for Third Reading be taken before the Notices and the other Orders of the Day.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 235.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 235.)

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and Commons' Reason for disagreeing to One of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order); One disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I interrupted the Business of the House last night, thinking it my duty to inform noble Lords on both sides of the House that it had come to my knowledge that a very important Amendment had been made in this Bill by the House of Commons. My object was that nothing should occur which would appear to be either inconvenient or unfair in the proceedings of the Government with respect to that Amendment, which we thought it our duty to oppose. It was the impression of the Government, and probably of most if not all your Lordships, that when we sent down the Bill to the House of Commons it was finally settled, as far as any important alteration was concerned. We did not expect that an Amendment, affecting, in our opinion, the principle, not only of this Bill, but of the three Bills forming the great scheme of Parliamentary Reform, would have been brought forward and carried. The principle of this Bill, as of the other Bills, has always been that the payment of rates should be a sine quâ non for the enjoyment of the franchise: but the Commons' Amendment would strike at the very root of that principle, for it proposes to enable persons to vote without having been assessed to the poor rates, and therefore without having bonâ fide paid their rates. In Edinburgh the effect would be to enable a very large number of persons to be placed on the register this year, and therefore to vote in the election next November, who afterwards might very likely not pay rates at all. The probability is that nine out of ten would be in the category of those exempted on the ground of poverty; and

  975
  therefore a very large number of what I may call factitious voters would take part in the election, and would afterwards virtually cheat the constituencies by not paying any rate. The proposal was not brought forward when the Bill was originally discussed in the House of Commons, but is a new attempt to change one of its great principles; and with all respect to that House I must say I am surprised that it should have been adopted by them on this occasion. I therefore move that this House disagree with the Amendment of the House of Commons in the interpretation clause, and I trust noble Lords on both sides will support the Government in that course.
  Moved, "That this House do disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 24, line 32."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think Her Majesty's Government are quite entitled to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, and we on this side of the House do not in the least oppose the Motion. I do not think the Amendment would have quite so important an effect as the noble Earl apprehends; but still it is no doubt one of some importance. It would appear from the Reports of the proceedings in the House of Commons that it was represented that Amendments had been made in this House by your Lordships in a restrictive sense, and that this Amendment was described as having for its object the removal of those restrictions. Now, I am sure the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will bear me out in saying that no Amendment was made here in a restrictive sense; but that, on the contrary, the few words proposed by me and assented to by the Government were intended to meet the case of one or two towns where there are no poor rates, and were therefore, of an enfranchising character. In rejecting the Amendment we are, in fact, adhering to the Bill as it came up to us from the House of Commons.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he should cordially support the Motion of the noble Earl. Had the Bill come up to their Lordships originally with this provision in it, there might, no doubt, have been much argument in favour of it; but, introduced at this period, when they were all agreed that no alteration should be made in the principle of the Bill, it was impossible for their Lordships to assent to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) is perfectly accurate in what he has stated. When the Bill originally came up to us it provided that a dwelling house should include any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling house and the occupier of which was separately rated to the relief of the poor. It was pointed out—I think by the noble Duke—that there are several parishes in Scotland where no poor rates are levied, and that consequently persons who would be otherwise entitled to vote in those parishes would lose their vote as the clause stood. It was, therefore, with the object of enfranchising a large number of persons who otherwise would not vote that your Lordships made an Amendment. It was an enlarging and not a restrictive Amendment; and having been made by this House, the House of Commons had last night the opportunity of considering it, and then they introduced the very objectionable words to which my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) has referred.
  Motion agreed to.
  Other of the Commons' Amendments agreed to: and Lords' Amendment to which the Commons disagree not insisted on; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the said Bill; the Committee to meet forthwith: Report from Committee of a Reason prepared by them, read and agreed to: and a Message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with the Reason.

LODGERS' PROPERTY PROTECTION BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
LODGERS' PROPERTY PROTECTION BILL.

  (NO. 186.) BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDsaid, that the object of the Bill which he would ask their Lordships to read a second time was to protect the property of lodgers against unjust seizure on the part of the landlord, and he trusted their Lordships would assent to his Motion and thereby affirm the principle. The present state of the law with regard to the property of lodgers was very unsatisfactory, and frequently gave rise to great hardship to large numbers of poor but deserving people. Lodgers were liable to have their property seized for the debts of their landlord without any reason being given for the

  977
  seizure, and without the smallest hope of recovering what was taken away. A land lord let his house, not upon the security, of his tenant's lodgers, but upon their be lief of the tenant's solvency, and it was very unjust that lodgers should be made to surfer for debts with which they had nothing to do. The present Bill would remove many of the evils of the existing law without interfering in any way with the equitable rights of the landlord. That some such measure was needed could be abundantly proved. Scarcely a day passed; without applications being made at the metropolitan police courts for protection against, liability to the seizure of goods belonging to lodgers. The very clothes of the lodger were liable to seizure. He proposed by this Bill to give the justices power, where the case appeared to call for it, to grant an order protecting the property of lodgers, and he hoped that what he had said would be held to be a sufficient justification for urging upon the House the propriety of passing a simple, just, and properly devised measure for the protection of people, very numerous and very poor, who were not able to protect themselves.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the object of the Bill was to protect lodgers against the general creditors or execution creditors of the owner of the house it was quite useless, because those creditors had no right whatever to seize the goods of the lodger. But if, on the other hand, the object was to protect the lodger against distress levied by the superior landlord, then the noble Marquess proposed to alter the whole law of distress in the country. The way that should be done was not by arming the justices with power to give protection to the beds, tables, and chairs of the lodger against distraint, but to say once for all that no landlord should have the right to distrain anything on the premises except what belonged to his own tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that whatever Amendments it might be desirable to introduce into the Bill it was necessary that something should be done. He was himself personally acquainted with a case of great hardship, in which a lady had taken unfurnished lodgings in Belgravia, and had not only paid her rent, but had given money out of her pocket to relieve the distress of her landlord, and yet
  978
  the furniture was seized by the superior landlord, and put into the hands of bailiffs for sale. Some effort ought to be made to remedy so great an injustice. The present Bill might not be the best for the purpose, but it might be altered so as to afford some remedy. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and to go into Committee, in order that some progress might be made with the question.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDsaid, after what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord he would not persevere with the Motion.
  Order discharged.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE STATUES IN WESTMINSTER HALL.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked, Whether the Statues now in Westminster Hall were permanently placed there? He believed he spoke the opinions of many most competent judges when he said that these modern statues were not in harmony with the ancient character of the Hall. But he objected to the statues on other grounds—he thought they were inferior works of art. He would not wish to say anything offensive to the artists who had executed them; he did not even know the names of any, except one; nor would he say that they were "vulgar productions" as was said in "another place;" but he did not; think they were creditable to the artists; to whom they had been entrusted. These statues had been shifted about from place to place, and it would seem that those who had charge of them were glad to find a place for them anywhere. They were first placed in the Royal Corridor, but were found too large for that passage, and then the question arose what was to be done with them. A council of war was held, and some one suggested that they should be removed to Westminster Hall; but he would ask their Lordships to judge for themselves what were their merits from an artistic point of view in that position. No doubt it would be said that a majority of the House of Commons had approved of the statues being placed where they were, but that was no reason why their Lordships should be prevented from expressing their opinion against their being continued to be kept there. A deci-

  979
  sion of the House of Commons was not necessarily final, and he did not see why they should accepted as absolute arbiters in matters of art. He begged to ask the noble Lord the Privy Seal, Whether any definite and final arrangement had been come to with regard to these statues and their ultimate destination?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: It is not my duty nor my intention to defend in an artistic point of view the statues which have been placed in Westminster Hall. When my noble Friend (Viscount Hardinge) rose to call attention to the subject I was in hopes that he was going to suggest a better site for them, seeing he considers that the present one is unsuitable and undesirable. It might have removed a difficulty had he done so. The noble Viscount has informed your Lord ships of the history of these statues. They have led rather a wandering life. They were in the first instance placed in the Royal Corridor; but they looked so gigantic that they had to be removed. Mr. Barry suggested that they should be placed in Westminster Hall, and that proposition was approved of both by Mr. Cowper and Lord John Manners, and ratified by a majority of 157 Members of the House of Commons. The opinion of those two Gentlemen, who have had great experience in such matters, is one to which deference should be paid; and as that opinion has, as I have said, been backed up by the House of Commons, I cannot hold out any hope that the statues will be removed from their present position. I do not see where else we can put them except into the street—where, at all events, they would not be in keeping with their surroundings, I believe that the only suggestion which has been made by way of improving the; appearance of the statues is that the wall behind them should be made of a darker colour. I hope that when this has been done that they will be placed in chronological order.
  LORD REDESDALEhoped that if the statues remained in their present position they would at least be dusted once a week. The effect of the dust which had lodged upon them was to destroy all the finer outlines.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that in their present position the statues were very incongruous and out of keeping with the Hall. Waiving altogether the merits or demerits of the statues, no one could differ from this opinion; but he did not think
  980
  that those who expressed it should be bound to find another site. He did not understand that the House of Commons had finally determined in favour of the present site, and he hoped that during the Recess some attempt would be made to find one where the statues would be more in harmony with what was around them.

COASTING TRADE OF FRANCE.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to call attention to the exclusion of British ships from the French coasting trade, and to move an Address for Correspondence relating thereto. As the matter now stood when our ships discharged a cargo at a French port they could not load another cargo for any other French port. Last year an application was made to the French Government on the subject. However favourable personally the French Emperor might be to the objects of the deputation, he could only, of course, refer the deputation to the Minister of Commerce, who said it was quite impossible to relax the existing laws in favour of British vessels, and that the exclusion must be strictly maintained. He begged to ask what had been done upon the subject, and hoped that whatever documents were in the possession of the Foreign Office would be produced, in order to enable their Lordships to form judgment on the matter.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of any Correspondence that may have taken place between the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and of any Communications from British Shipowners, in reference to the Exclusion of British Vessels from the Coasting Trade of France, and to the existing Treaties between France and Spain or any other Country relating to that Trade.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had for some time directed their attention to the important subject which the noble Marquess had brought under their Lordships' notice, and Lord Lyons had been requested to avail himself of every opportunity of endeavouring to induce the French Government to take a more liberal course upon this subject. There was, however, no treaty to bind the French Government to do so, and we must continue to hope that they would consider the subject in the liberal spirit in which they negotiated the commercial treaty. In the present state

  981
  of the negotiations it would not be desirable to publish the Papers which the noble Marquess asked for; but he might rest assured that the Government was not inactive on the subject, and maintained communications with the French Government upon it.
  LORD TAUNTONdid not quite agree with the noble Marquess in the way he had put the case. No doubt we had no direct treaty claim on the French Government on the subject; but he thought we had a good ground of appeal to them under the "most favoured nation clause," which entitled us to claim that we should be placed on an equal footing with the most favoured nation; and we were, he thought, under that entitled to the same privileges that had been conceded to Spain.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEoffered a few words in explanation, and said he would not press his Motion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS (VOTING PAPERS) BILL.—(No. 201.)
(The Lord Clinton.)
UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS (VOTING PAPERS) BILL.—(No. 201.)

  SECOND READING.
  LORD CLINTON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said that its only object was to extend to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge the same facilities in the employment of voting papers at elections which had already been granted to the Scotch Universities and the London University.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Clinton.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he doubted the propriety of the relaxation proposed. The subject of voting papers in relation to the two Universities had been largely discussed during the passage of the English Reform Bill, and provisions had been inserted by which two checks against personation were retained—which were that the voter should be personally known to the magistrate in whose presence the voting paper was signed, and that the voter should be further identified by the person who presented his proxy. Now, he understood that the object of the Bill was to do away with the second security. Under the plan now proposed it was quite clear that any man who had no reason to believe the contrary could solemnly declare
  982
  —although he had no knowledge of the voter—that he believed the voting paper to be signed by him; and this seemed to offer facilities to agents for obtaining voting papers by scores. It seemed to him that this was one of those checks which were necessary on the voting paper system, and therefore he thought the Bill proposed an experiment of a doubtful character. Still, as a similar method had been adopted in the Scotch Reform Bill, and it had received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, he would not oppose the Second Reading of this measure.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if the security were necessary it ought to be taken in the Scotch Bill.
  LORD CLINTONsaid, the Bill put the English Universities on the same footing as the Scotch Universities were left by the Scotch Reform Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Act by which voting papers were introduced at the Oxford and Cambridge Universities was applied to the University of London by the Reform Act of last Session; but it was thought desirable in the latter case to relax the provision which required personal knowledge of the voter in the person who presented the voting paper. The circumstances of the London University were materially different from those of the other Universities. In the latter there wore a large number of resident members who were acquainted, generally, with the members of the constituent body; but in the case of the London University there was no such resident body, and the voters were scattered all over the country. If in their case the same restrictions were imposed as existed in the case of the older Universities, so few Members of the London University would be able to vote that there could scarcely be said to be a fair representation of the University. It was this difficulty with respect to London which was really the cause of the Bill being introduced; and then it was represented that to avoid distinction the other Universities must be placed upon the same footing.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is desirable that your Lordships should exactly understand the position in which this question stands with reference to the Scotch Bill. In the Scotch Reform Bill, which has passed the House of Commons and has also passed your Lordships' House, you have already provided that the Act regulating the elections for the English Universities shall, with respect to

  983
  voting papers, be applied to the Scotch Universities; but with this exception—
  "Except so much of that Act as requires that the person delivering the voting paper shall make attestation of his personal acquaintance with the voter."
  You have therefore already enacted in the Scotch Bill that a University voting paper may be handed in without the attestation of the person handing it in that he is personally acquainted with the voter. I nave no doubt there is a good reason for making that exception in the case of the Scotch Universities, and no doubt there is equally good reason for extending it to the case of the London University. Then the question you have to consider is this—if you make exceptions for the Scotch and London Universities, can you possibly maintain different regulations for Oxford and Cambridge? It was the feeling that that could not be done which led to the introduction of this measure. A little misapprehension has arisen with regard to the Amendment of the Scotch Bill, which at first sight seems connected with this, but is really quite different. In the Scotch Reform Bill as it came up from the other House there was in the Schedule a form of attestation to be signed by the magistrate who received the voting paper, and who had to declare that he was personally acquainted with the voter, who signed it in his presence. Your Lordships struck out the words which made the magistrate declare his personal acquaintance with the voter, and the words so struck out have been re-inserted by the House of Commons. With that Amendment your Lordships to-night have agreed; but this is quite a different matter from the Bill, which will apply to the English Universities, and assimilate them to the others.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the circumstances of the Scotch Universities were different from those of the English Universities. There was a comparatively small resident body, and it would disfranchise a large number of voters if they could not transfer their voting papers except to personal friends—a restriction which, it seemed to him, did not provide much security against personation.
  LORD REDESDALEapproved the relaxation on the ground that it offered a precedent for introducing voting papers generally. He did not see why any voter, as well as a member of a University, should not go before a magistrate who
  984
  knows him, and fill up a voting paper, which might be tendered in the same way as a graduate's voting paper.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.—(No. 228.)
(The Lard Chelmsford.)
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.—(No. 228.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he desired to explain to their Lordships the alterations which had been introduced into the Bill by the Select Committee to which it had been referred. The Members of the Committee had given their most careful consideration to the whole subject, and every point underwent the closest and most minute examination, no alteration having been made without the fullest discussion. But although the Amendments which had been introduced had, on every occasion, received the unanimous approval of the Committee, the House could hardly be expected to place such confidence as to take upon trust all the alterations which they had recommended. The changes proposed were certainly very considerable—and indeed the features of the Bill were so altered that on its returning to the House of Commons it would be hardly recognizable. The difficulty of devising a proper remedy for the evils against which this Bill was directed could only be properly estimated by those who had closely considered the subject from every point of view. It was quite clear, however, that no Bill could be of any avail unless it were compulsory. Permissive Bills had been tried and had signally failed. On the whole be believed the Committee had succeeded in framing a measure which was sufficient to attain the end in view, having a due regard to the rights of property. The first subject to which the attention of the Committee was directed was the Authority in the metropolis to which the powers of the Act ought to be intrusted. The Local Authority proposed by the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Commons, was the Metropolitan Board of Works. Petitions, however, had been presented to their Lordships' House from the vestries of many of the great parishes in London, complaining of that arrangement.

  985
  As the Bill originally stood most important works would probaby have had to be undertaken by the Board, and provision was made to raise the sums required for such works by means of a local rate. It was objected to this arrangement that it would be a very hard thing to make persons residing at a distance from the place where the nuisance existed contribute to a rate raised for a purpose in which apparently they had no interest at all. Now, perhaps, on principle it might be said that the whole of the metropolis was interested in preventing disease and infection in any part of it; but the Committee had deemed it right to alter the Bill, so as to obviate the objection. They came to the conclusion that, under all the circumstances, it would be better to impose the duty of carrying the Act into execution on the vestries and district Boards in the metropolis, as being more closely and immediately interested in the matter than the Board of Works. The next point considered by the Committee was as to the appointment of the Medical Officer—a most important agent in the carrying of the Bill into effect, as on his report all the subsequent proceedings depended. It was originally proposed that he should be appointed by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but as the Local Authority had been since changed it was deemed desirable by the Committee that the vestries and district Boards should not have the power of appointing and removing the Medical Officer without some check and control. The Committee, therefore, resolved that the appointment and the removal of the Medical Officer should only be made with the sanction of the Poor Law Board. The next point the Committee had to consider was what should be done in cases where structural alterations were necessary. As the Bill stood origiginally it was provided that on the Local Authority receiving the Report of the Medical Officer they should send it to their Engineer or Surveyor, whose duty it would be to take it into his consideration, and to state what alterations would, in his opinion, be necessary. Now, the Committee thought it most desirable that the Local Authority should be required to appoint a Surveyor to examine the premises after the Report of the Medical Officer had been sent in, and to determine and report whether the defects were such as required to be remedied by structural alterations, or whether it would be necessary that the premises, or any
  986
  part of them, should be demolished. The Bill only provided for the sending of the Report of the Medical Officer to the owner of the premises; but the Committee had thought it right that the latter should also receive the Report of the Engineer or Surveyor, and should further be afforded an opportunity of appearing before the Local Authority and objecting to any Order being made. In the original Bill no provision was made to meet a state of things which was very likely indeed to arise—the event of the owner of the property alleging that its condition did not arise from any default on his part, but was owing to some defect in his neighbour's premises, or some drain which the parish were bound to keep in repair. To meet such a case the Committee had recommended if the Local Authority decided against the objection the party aggrieved might appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the decision, giving notice to the person or persons whom he had alleged to be in default. From the decision of the Quarter Sessions there would be an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. Another point of very material importance, in which the Committee found it necessary to make considerable change in the Bill, was this—As the Bill stood when it came before the Committee, suppose the owner should not like to make the necessary repairs or alterations, power was given to the Local Authority to either shut up the premises or purchase them, and provision was made in the Bill as to the amount of compensation to be paid to the owner, and for intrusting to a building society the works undertaken by the Local Authority. The Committee deemed it objectionable that the Local Authority should have anything to do with the purchase of such property. They therefore introduced a provision to confine the operations of the Local Authority to either such demolition or such building as ought to be done by the owner, at the same time making the owner responsible for the cost. In the Bill as it originally stood there was no provision giving persons, and particularly nominal owners, the expenses of such improvements as it was desirable to have made. The Committee had, however, introduced a clause providing that when alterations had been made under the order of the Local Authority, and to the satisfaction of the superintending Surveyor, the owner might get from the latter a certificate, and proceeding to the Local Authority might

  987
  obtain a charging order for the outlay he had made. That certificate was to be filed and recorded by the Clerk of the Peace; and that having been done the owner was to have a charge on the premises of 6 per cent on the outlay for thirty years. The Committee had also provided that under similar circumstances the Local Authority might proceed to the Quarter Sessions with the certificate and vouchers, and that certificate having been filed the Local Authority should have a charge, by way of mortgage on the premises, for the outlay which had been incurred. He believed he had now put their Lordships in possession of the alterations which the Committee had made in the Bill, and which he thought had effected very great improvement in it.
  LORD PORTMANwas of opinion that the Bill had been very materially improved by the Select Committee, and that the noble and learned Lord who had just addressed the House, and to Lord Westbury, their Lordships were deeply indebted for the care and pains they had bestowed upon it. Under the guidance of those two noble and learned Lords the legal portions of the clauses had been carefully framed. The Bill was now one which might be made to work. All that was unworkable in it when it came from the Commons had been struck out. If they compared the Bill as it stood now with the Bill as it left the Commons, the comparison would satisfy their Lordships that it was wise to examine in a Select Committee Bills coming up from the Commons, even though they might have been in the House of Commons more Sessions than one. He thought it was right to have determined to prevent vestries from purchasing house property, and to have struck out the clauses for giving powers to building companies to speculate through the aid of vestries, but above all to have given to the vestry the powers which the House of Commons had proposed to give to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed that the only value which this Bill possessed over the Nuisance Removal and other Acts consisted in its giving power to the Local Authority to demolish buildings that ought to be removed.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYquite agreed that the alterations effected in this Bill by the Committee were good ones, and he desired to express his thanks to the two noble and learned ex-Chancellors who had been alluded to for the time and attention they had given to the measure
  988
  in the Select Committee. He felt assured that if the House of Commons accepted the Bill it would produce very beneficial results. What had been done with it in their Lordships' House would show the country that their Lordships were always ready to do what was for the benefit of the working classes.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR.—QUESTION.
  EARL SPENCER,on rising to put a Question to the Under Secretary for War on the subject of certain occurrences in connection with the recent Review at Windsor, said the subject was one of great importance to the Volunteers, more especially just now, because it was expected that another Volunteer Review would be held in the course of two or three weeks. The circumstances of the case which formed the subject of his Question were as follows. Her Majesty had recently held a Review of Volunteers at Windsor, At that Review there was, he believed, a larger attendance of Volunteers from all parts of the country than there had been on any previous occasion of a similar character. The Volunteers marched past before Her Majesty, and afterwards went through some manœuvres with which the illustrious Duke at the head of the army had found himself able to express his satisfaction. But that satisfaction, so gratifying to all Volunteers, had been very much clouded, in consequence of some circumstances which were reported to have occurred after the Review. It was in reference to those circumstances he wished to say a few words. There were two routes by which it had been arranged that the Volunteers were to return from the Review—one the Great Western line, from Windsor; the other the South Western, from Datchet. He believed he was right in saying that no difficulty had been experienced on the part of those who returned by the former route. By eleven o'clock, he believed, there was not a Volunteer about the Windsor Station of the Great Western line; but he was sorry to say that a very different state of things had been experienced at the Datchet Station of the other line. A noble Friend of his (Lord Elcho) had stated in "another place" that he and his Volunteers were from ten o'clock on Saturday evening till two o'clock on Sunday morning obliged

  989
  to remain by the banks of the Thames before they could be sent away. He regretted to think that the circumstance stated by his noble Friend showed what might be regarded as almost a breakdown in the railway arrangements between Datchet and London. No doubt, on the occasion in question there were causes of confusion. He should refer to these; but he hardly thought they were sufficient to account for the delay which actually occurred in the conveyance of the Volunteers on their return to town. He therefore wished to ask his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War in what manner that delay was really to be accounted for? He did not know whether there had been anything wrong in the arrangements between the War Office and the Volunteers; but certainly no such occurrence had happened on the occasion of any previous Review of Volunteers. He now came to another subject. At Datchet the greatest possible confusion existed; a large number of stragglers from different corps were wandering about without officers and naturally in a slate of complete disorder. He was sorry to say that still graver charges were brought against them—they were accused of insulting the Inspector General and his Staff, and committing other acts of insubordination. He had done all he could to ascertain the facts with accuracy, and he believed, as far as his information went, it was correct. It would seem that the disorder commenced immediately after the Review. It was very natural that on such a hot day the Volunteers should fall out of the ranks with a view of getting some refreshment, which they very much needed; but having done so, they ought to have returned to their ranks, and this, he feared, they had failed to do. But further, he believed, some regiments left the ground without any order whatever. Now, on this point the regulations issued by the War Office were very distinct. Brigadiers commanding upon such occasions were directed not to leave their command till they had seen the various regiments of which it was composed, so to speak, embarked in the railway train. But if a regiment left the ground without any order to do so, it was clear that this injunction could not be carried out. Under any circumstances, he was assured it would have been very difficult for some brigadiers to carry the order into effect, for the regiments under their command were so ar-
  990
  ranged that they had to go, perhaps, to three or four different places. He hoped his noble Friend would be prepared to state that in future arrangements would be made which would obviate any such inconvenience in returning by the trains, and at the same time would be prepared to state whether in those brigades which kept together there were any corps which left the ranks in opposition to the orders given. He was told that, among those who returned by way of Datchet several corps almost raced to the river in order to get first to the pontoon-bridge, and some of those corps, he was informed, in doing so, were left almost without any officers. Under such circumstances, it was no wonder that disorder should have been occasioned. He asked, in the name of the Volunteers, that this matter should be fully investigated. The Volunteers of this country were proud, not only of performing their manœuvres creditably, but of being efficient and soldierlike in their bearing whenever they were under arms. And he fully believed that upon this occasion the great majority of the regiments did behave in a soldierlike manner. Although the circumstances to which they were exposed were very trying, and although their patience was much exhausted by the delay, they remained steadily under arms, endeavouring to assist their officers, as far as possible, to stop the stragglers, and it was only due to them that their services should be pointed out and recognized. He was aware that inquiry had been made to some extent into the circumstances; and therefore he was anxious to ascertain from his noble Friend the nature of that inquiry. He hoped the Government would go into the matter fully and thoroughly; and speaking for the Volunteers and the country, he was sure that whatever might be the decision of the authorities, they would be supported in carrying it into effect firmly, and even sharply, if necessary. The Question he had to ask the Under Secretary of State for War was, Whether any inquiry had been made into the causes of the confusion reported to have taken place at Datchet on the return of the Volunteers from, the Review held by Her Majesty at Windsor; and, if so, whether any steps had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such disorder at future Reviews?
  LORD TRUROsaid, he thought the Volunteers must feel greatly indebted to the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) for the

  991
  Question which he had put to Her Majesty's Government, and for the temperate manner in which the matter had been dealt with. It was quite possible that under a feeling of irritation some hasty action might have been taken, for the offence given to the Inspector General of the Reserve Forces was one which had rendered the whole Volunteer force justly indignant. It must, however, be evident that in organizing such a force as was hastily got together at Windsor, great difficulties necessarily arose. The War Office possibly was to blame, in some respects, for the want of arrangement which was observable; but it should be remembered that the Inspector General was comparatively new to the duties of his position, and had a great deal to learn in connection with the Volunteer force, although during the period which he had held office he had displayed an urbanity, kindness, and ability calculated to exercise the very best effects upon the organization and efficiency of the force. There had been an error, he thought, in not dividing more equally the force which was to proceed from cither railway station; and their Lordships also might possibly entertain the opinion that where so large a body of country and metropolitan Volunteers were brought together it would have been advisable to keep them in check by a larger number of officers of the regular service. As regarded one suggestion which had been made by the noble Earl, he was in a position to give practical information upon the subject. The men in the brigade which he had the honour of commanding had been under arms from four or five in the morning, and he heard many of them say that they had hardly broken their fast during the day. What happened was this—After the Review was over these corps, having provided themselves with tents and commissariat in different parts of the ground, asked to be broken off for a period of not less than an hour in order to recruit themselves. The difficulty of keeping brigades together was shown by the fact that the brigade which he commanded was composed of corps coming from four counties, and therefore being unable to accompany them all to their respective stations, he was obliged to break up the brigade upon the ground. It was obvious that the difficulties which were experienced could not be attributed wholly, or even mainly, to any neglect on the part of the authorities, but was the natural consequence of assembling Volun-
  992
  teers in such numbers as 20,000 or 30,000 men, thereby putting a great strain upon the railway service. The present, however, was not the time for discussing that question; but he hoped that if Volunteers were again brought together in such large numbers it would not be without the valuable assistance of a sufficient number of officers belonging to the regular army.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the case mentioned by the noble Earl was one in which the War Office would have been fully justified in acting with some severity. An inquiry had been directed with regard to the conduct of three corps in which irregularities had been specially brought to the notice of the authorities. It was possible that more than three corps might have been properly the subjects of inquiry; but the Secretary of State thought that the case would be sufficiently met by a circular addressed to the Volunteers generally, and by come stringent rules to be observed upon the occasion of their assembling in large bodies hereafter. In the case of the Windsor Review the regulations were quite adequate for the purpose, had they been attended to. The noble Earl opposite had mentioned some of them, relating to the order of distribution and the order of march upon the railway stations; these regulations were such as had proved successful in keeping order upon former occasions; and it was very much to be regretted that the conduct of a portion of the Volunteer force had tended upon this occasion to bring discredit upon the body at large. The noble Earl asked what had been the cause of all this confusion. He himself had mentioned the cause—a frequent source of military disorder—when he used the word "straggling." In the old wars this had been a frequent source of military disaster. During the Peninsular War many soldiers had been hanged by the Provost Marshal for crimes which had originated in "straggling." In fact, when once a soldier left his place in the ranks without permission he seemed to forget all laws, human and divine, and gave himself over to the Devil and all his works. The same cause to which the executions in the Peninsula were traceable was the beginning of the disorder at Windsor. The noble Earl had correctly described many of the irregularities; but even before the Review commenced there were many men who left the ranks and mixed with the spectators, while during the Review there

  993
  were many more who quitted their places, some without orders, and some expressly contrary to orders. He had been further informed that there were many men who left the ranks upon the march from the Review ground, in their impatience to reach the bridge; and thus a large body of stragglers was collected in the vicinity of the river, blocking up the approaches to the bridge, and preventing those corps from crossing which had retained their formation. The blame must be laid in the first place upon every individual Volunteer who left the ranks without permission; next, upon those officers who did not keep them in their places; and likewise, according to reports which cannot be doubted, upon those officers who did not remain with their regiments. There were defects in the railway management which of course contributed to the delay; though it is obvious that if all had remained in the ranks the delay and consequent disorder would not have been anything like the discreditable scene which actually occurred. Hitherto the control of the Volunteer force had been left in a great degree—and very properly—to the Volunteers themselves. But he might suggest that if, instead of the usual complimentary notice of the Review an Order were issued regimentally stating that Private A, B, and C had left the ranks, and for that breach of discipline were discharged summarily from the service, under the section applicable in that case, the measure would have a better effect than any official answer which might be given by the Secretary of State. It was supposed that the War Office could prevent the recurrence of such disorderly scenes. Undoubtedly, if there was reason to suppose that such disorders would be repeated hereafter, it might be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider the propriety of advising Her Majesty to dissolve the corps; but he was not disposed to take so extreme a course on account of one defect. This occurrence would show to all ranks the necessity of maintaining exact discipline under all circumstances, and how a small neglect might become a great disorder. And the Secretary of State hoped—and ill that hope he entirely concurred—that the same spirit which had produced and maintained the Volunteer force would induce them to cultivate and observe the military virtues of steadiness and silence in the ranks, and of patient obedience to orders, without which the Volunteer force
  994
  would be an incumbrance rather than a support to the military power of the country.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, although individually I had no sort of concern in the arrangements for the Review, yet I cannot help thinking that the matter is one of great importance in a military point of view. I think that everyone here and elsewhere must have regretted that anything such as we have heard described to-night should have occurred in Windsor Park. But I must candidly say that I had not the least idea that it was a growing habit on the part of the Volunteers to fall out of the ranks without permission. There can, however, be no doubt that on this occasion a number of isolated men were straggling about with arms in their hands, which showed that they must have gone down with their corps to this Review. The very first characteristic of a Volunteer force is to be ready and willing to obey orders, and stick to their ranks as long as their regiment is under arms. They enter freely, they come of their own accord, their names are registered at their own request, and there is no sort of compulsion. But if they agree to appear they are bound to be orderly, and from the moment they enter the ranks of their corps to the moment when they are either dismissed or have permission from their commanding officer to leave the ranks, they are bound to remain exactly in the same way as any soldier in the army. If that rule is strictly I obeyed, as it ought to be, no sort of irregularity such as that complained of can possibly happen. I was not present, but, I believe the whole arose from that laxity of discipline in leaving the ranks which is so serious a drawback to the efficiency of the Volunteer force that I cannot point out too strongly that such laxity should not be tolerated for a moment. All Volunteer officers ought to agree that if any Volunteer leaves the ranks without permission, or without some good reason, he should be struck off the rolls of the regiment. If that were carried out in all cases straggling I would be put an end to. I have been told, but I cannot vouch for the fact, that it is the custom for many officers to leave the ranks the moment a review is over. If there is a moment when it is important that the officers should remain in the ranks it is after a review is over. It is far more important that they should remain in the ranks after the review than before it, for it is much easier to get the men to the review

  995
  than to get them away. There are always a number of strangers and sightseers who mix with the troops, and it is just then that the officers are wanted. It should be laid down as a rule that no officer should leave the ranks unless with the sanction of the commanding officer; but this permission should be extremely rare, and should not be given without some good and sufficient reason. I sincerely concur in the opinion that the Staff of the army ought to be called upon to assist on these occasions more than it has hitherto done. I do not think this is necessary on ordinary occasions; but when you have 25,000 men under review the case is very different. It is desirable that the Staff should go with the Volunteers to the place of debarkation on the railroad, where their services are far more necessary even than on the field. I understand, with respect to the railway arrangements, that the trains were not to be filled by the Volunteers as they arrived, but that each corps was to be carried on separately by its own train. The result would naturally be that the troops belonging to that train would possibly be the last regiment on the line of march, and would have to pass along narrow lanes through the other troops while the train was waiting their arrival, and stopped the way. Of all the extraordinary arrangements I have ever heard of that is the strangest. Each train ought to have taken the first body of men that came; but to say that one particular train was to be kept waiting till a particular regiment arrived, which might, perhaps, be at a distance of about a mile and a half, was so preposterous that I hope we shall never hear of such a thing again. I regret that such an event should have occurred, but I am not sorry that your Lordships' attention has been called to it, and to the important subject of the movement of troops. I think the railways ought to adapt themselves to the requirements of the military service, and what has occurred ought to be a good lesson to them as well as to us to consider how large bodies of troops can be easily and rapidly moved from one place to another. I am glad that there is to be an inquiry but I feel that great excuses may be made for the Volunteers, and I trust the result will be to prove that they are ready to correct little errors, and that the railway authorities will assist the War Office in making such arrangements for the future as to prevent the recurrence of such deplorable irregularities.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was very desirable that what had occurred at the Windsor Review should be fully discussed and inquired into, and that the Government should show every disposition to bring the facts to light. The practice of straggling among the Volunteers was very objectionable, and likely to lead to the greatest confusion. The law had provided very effectual means for repressing disorders that might occur in the field; because, although there was no military discipline capable of being exercised with regard to the Volunteers in time of peace, yet the law provided that the commanding officer should have the power of placing under arrest any officers or men who might misconduct themselves. He did not know whether this regulation had ever been put in force; but it afforded an effectual means of striking at such irregularities. He trusted that when the Government had investigated the matter they would not hesitate to take such steps as might appear necessary to prevent the recurrence of evils of this description. There was no want of power if they chose to exercise it. With regard to errors committed by officers in charge of brigades, there was the simple method of not intrusting brigades again to any officer who had proved himself unfit. In case of more serious delinquency, the Secretary of State could advise Her Majesty to deprive the officer misbehaving of his commission, and in still more serious cases there was the power, which it was once his painful duty to exercise, of disbanding a corps. He could conceive nothing more unjust than to blame the whole of the force for what occurred on this occasion; but with respect to any individuals or corps that were to blame, he hoped there would be no hesitation in exercising the authority possessed by the Government. He was bound to say that the Volunteers were placed in a trying position, for he believed there was no doubt that while the Great Western Railway did its duty well the South Western performed its duty very ill, and that no disorders had been spoken of in respect to troops taken away by the former line. The blame must be fairly shared between the Volunteers and the railway; and it must be admitted that when men who had left London, or a more distant place, at a very early hour, with defective commissariat arrangements, were kept waiting many hours after a long and fatiguing day by

  997
  the misconduct of the railway company, it was very irritating and would try the temper of any body of men. He would suggest that in future the War Office should so arrange the brigades as to put together those which were to arrive and return by the same route, and so that the orders to brigadiers to remain with their brigades until they returned might be capable of being strictly carried out. When such arrangements were made the War Office could insist on the orders being strictly obeyed. He believed great good would result from this discussion, and he hoped the public, bearing in mind that the number of corps affected was not really very large, would not hastily and unjustly conclude that more than a temporary slur had been cast upon the Volunteer force.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he thought the officers should be made responsible for the good conduct of their men. It must be remembered that they had the power of dismissing men on the spot, and he once saw that power exercised. He was in command of his regiment at a county review, and some men in a particular corps refused to be told off for the purpose of having their files equalized. The captain of the company at once struck oft the roll every man who had so refused, and their rifles were taken away, and the result was that at the close of the review they said they were very much ashamed of the disgrace they had brought on their corps, and begged to be re-attested. Now, if Volunteer officers gave strict warning to their battalions that stragglers would be thus summarily dealt with, the evil, he believed, would be checked. Volunteer officers did not sufficiently understand the powers vested in them; but if those powers were explained, and if an appeal were made to the public spirit of the men, there would be no recurrence of the scenes so much complained of. He was glad to learn that the straggling and want of discipline were confined to four or five regiments. The whole force ought not to be blamed for the misconduct of a small portion of it.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that the evil of straggling, whether on the part of officers or men, was obvious even to a civilian; but if it were true that some of the Volunteers had started at 4 a.m., and had been kept twelve or fifteen hours without food, the temptation to straggle in such a locality as Windsor must have
  998
  been enormous. Some regulations, it appeared to him, should be made to prevent the men from suffering from starvation.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that the hissing and hooting to which General Lindsay was exposed on his placing men to guard the pontoon bridge and prevent confusion was most unjustifiable. The mismanagement of the railway company was no justification for such conduct towards a distinguished officer. There was a regular and military way in which complaints against the railway should have been represented. It had been stated that the officers did not pay sufficient attention to their duties, and he feared they were the weakest part of the force. If there was some regulation by which they underwent an examination, or otherwise proved their efficiency, irregularities of this kind would not occur. He would suggest that the Secretary for War should issue an order pointing out what the consequences would be if such scenes ever occurred again.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, there was no disposition on the part of the War Office to limit the inquiry to three corps if a more comprehensive investigation was required; but in the confusion which occurred only three had been brought under the notice of the Secretary of State.

  HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling Her Majesty to accept a Surrender upon Terms of the Lands, Privileges, and Rights of "The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay," and for admitting the same into the Dominion of Canada—Was presented by the Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS; read 1a. (No. 244.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.